SSRC Library

The SSRC Library allows visitors to access materials related to self-sufficiency programs, practice and research. Visitors can view common search terms, conduct a keyword search or create a custom search using any combination of the filters at the left side of this page. To conduct a keyword search, type a term or combination of terms into the search box below, select whether you want to search the exact phrase or the words in any order, and click on the blue button to the right of the search box to view relevant results.

Writing a paper? Working on a literature review? Citing research in a funding proposal? Use the SSRC Citation Assistance Tool to compile citations.

Conduct a search and filter parameters as desired.

"Check" the box next to the resources for which you would like a citation.

Select "Download Selected Citation" at the top of the Library Search Page.

Select your export style:

Text File.

RIS Format.

APA format.

Select submit and download your citations.

The SSRC Library includes resources which may be available only via journal subscription. The SSRC may be able to provide users without subscription access to a particular journal with a single use copy of the full text. Please email the SSRC with your request.

The SSRC Library collection is constantly growing and new research is added regularly. We welcome our users to submit a library item to help us grow our collection in response to your needs.

U.S. children are more likely to live apart from a biological parent than at any time in history. Although the Child Support Enforcement system has tremendous reach, its policies have not kept pace with significant economic, demographic, and cultural changes. Narrative analysis of in-depth interviews with 429 low-income noncustodial fathers suggests that the system faces a crisis of legitimacy. Visualization of language used to describe all forms child support show that the formal system is considered punitive and to lead to a loss of power and autonomy. Further, it is not associated with coparenting or the father–child bond—themes closely associated with informal and in-kind support. Rather than stoking men’s identities as providers, the system becomes “just another bill to pay.” Orders must be sustainable, all fathers should have coparenting agreements, and alternative forms of support should count toward fathers’ obligations. Recovery of government welfare costs should be eliminated. (Author abstract)

U.S. children are more likely to live apart from a biological parent than at any time in history. Although the Child Support Enforcement system has tremendous reach, its policies have not kept pace with significant economic, demographic, and cultural changes. Narrative analysis of in-depth interviews with 429 low-income noncustodial fathers suggests that the system faces a crisis of legitimacy. Visualization of language used to describe all forms child support show that the formal system is considered punitive and to lead to a loss of power and autonomy. Further, it is not associated with coparenting or the father–child bond—themes closely associated with informal and in-kind support. Rather than stoking men’s identities as providers, the system becomes “just another bill to pay.” Orders must be sustainable, all fathers should have coparenting agreements, and alternative forms of support should count toward fathers’ obligations. Recovery of government welfare costs should be eliminated. (Author abstract)

New evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and other behavioral sciences suggests that TANF programs may be able to improve participants’ outcomes by applying the science of self-regulation. Self-regulation refers to a foundational set of skills and personality factors that enable people to control their thoughts, emotions, and behavior. It is what helps people set goals, make plans, solve problems, reason, organize, prioritize, initiate tasks, manage time, and persist in and monitor their actions. Mathematica engaged four TANF programs implementing new interventions informed by evidence on self-regulation and designed to help participants reach their personal and job-related goals in a process to improve the quality of the interventions and their implementation. The process, called Learn, Innovate, Improve (LI2), brings social science theory, research evidence, and practice wisdom together, with the goal of creating innovations that are practical, effective, scalable, and sustainable. (Author introduction)

New evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and other behavioral sciences suggests that TANF programs may be able to improve participants’ outcomes by applying the science of self-regulation. Self-regulation refers to a foundational set of skills and personality factors that enable people to control their thoughts, emotions, and behavior. It is what helps people set goals, make plans, solve problems, reason, organize, prioritize, initiate tasks, manage time, and persist in and monitor their actions. Mathematica engaged four TANF programs implementing new interventions informed by evidence on self-regulation and designed to help participants reach their personal and job-related goals in a process to improve the quality of the interventions and their implementation. The process, called Learn, Innovate, Improve (LI2), brings social science theory, research evidence, and practice wisdom together, with the goal of creating innovations that are practical, effective, scalable, and sustainable. (Author introduction)

The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 introduced significant reforms to the Section 811 supportive housing for non-elderly adults with disabilities, including the new Section 811 Project Rental Assistance (PRA) Program and a mandated evaluation of its implementation and effectiveness. The Phase I is an implementation evaluation focused on the initial 18 months (Jan 2015-June 2016) of program implementation by the first 12 grantees funded through the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 grant competition. It provides an overall picture of how the demonstration was implemented in the initial states and analyzes differences in program design, target population, and housing and service strategies. The overarching research questions include an assessment of the following aspects of program implementation: partnerships between state housing and health and human services or Medicaid agencies; property and unit selection strategies; target population outreach and referral approaches; supportive services availability; and major challenges and successes. Grantees spent much of the...

The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 introduced significant reforms to the Section 811 supportive housing for non-elderly adults with disabilities, including the new Section 811 Project Rental Assistance (PRA) Program and a mandated evaluation of its implementation and effectiveness. The Phase I is an implementation evaluation focused on the initial 18 months (Jan 2015-June 2016) of program implementation by the first 12 grantees funded through the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 grant competition. It provides an overall picture of how the demonstration was implemented in the initial states and analyzes differences in program design, target population, and housing and service strategies. The overarching research questions include an assessment of the following aspects of program implementation: partnerships between state housing and health and human services or Medicaid agencies; property and unit selection strategies; target population outreach and referral approaches; supportive services availability; and major challenges and successes. Grantees spent much of the period covered by Phase I of the evaluation solidifying partner roles and responsibilities and developing the systems and procedures needed to accommodate this new and complex approach to providing affordable housing for people with disabilities. The pace of attracting properties and units to the program and leasing units has been slower than HUD and grantees expected for a variety of reasons, such as tight housing market conditions (high-price and low-vacancy), difficulty aligning housing and services, program requirements, and location mismatch. (Author abstract)

This report, with generous support from Capital One, draws on data results from a two-city pilot to better understand how Financial Empowerment Center (FEC) clients are saving and ultimately inform new savings indicators for financial counseling success.

In 2017, financial counselors at Financial Empowerment Centers (FECs) in Nashville and Philadelphia tested an innovative approach to defining, discussing, and tracking their clients’ efforts to build savings, using new savings outcomes. The CFE Fund combined counselor and client experiences with academic and policy research to operationalize the field’s thinking about how people with low incomes save, to tell a more complete story about the impact of financial counseling on savings, and to learn whether changing a program’s data system affects the way financial counselors work and the results their clients achieve. (Author introduction)

This report, with generous support from Capital One, draws on data results from a two-city pilot to better understand how Financial Empowerment Center (FEC) clients are saving and ultimately inform new savings indicators for financial counseling success.

In 2017, financial counselors at Financial Empowerment Centers (FECs) in Nashville and Philadelphia tested an innovative approach to defining, discussing, and tracking their clients’ efforts to build savings, using new savings outcomes. The CFE Fund combined counselor and client experiences with academic and policy research to operationalize the field’s thinking about how people with low incomes save, to tell a more complete story about the impact of financial counseling on savings, and to learn whether changing a program’s data system affects the way financial counselors work and the results their clients achieve. (Author introduction)

This brief summarizes key characteristics of programs funded through the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) that reported at least half of the youth they served were adjudicated youth. PREP, which aims to reduce teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and associated risk behaviors, is administered by the Family and Youth Services Bureau within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Funding is awarded to states and territories through formula grants (State PREP), and through a competitive process to tribes and tribal entities (Tribal PREP) and to direct service providers in states and territories that did not take State PREP funding (Competitive PREP).

Purpose

This brief is one in a series that will inform stakeholders and the public about the PREP program.

This brief summarizes key characteristics of programs funded through the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) that reported at least half of the youth they served were adjudicated youth. PREP, which aims to reduce teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and associated risk behaviors, is administered by the Family and Youth Services Bureau within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Funding is awarded to states and territories through formula grants (State PREP), and through a competitive process to tribes and tribal entities (Tribal PREP) and to direct service providers in states and territories that did not take State PREP funding (Competitive PREP).

Purpose

This brief is one in a series that will inform stakeholders and the public about the PREP program.

Key Findings and Highlights

Seventy-two programs across 24 states and territories reported primarily serving adjudicated youth. These programs served about 8,000 youth each year, largely through juvenile detention centers. Most youth in these programs reported being White or Black or African American, and most were ages 15 to 18. About three-quarters of youth reported being sexually active before entering the program. After PREP, more than one-third of the youth in these programs reported they were less likely to have sex in the next six months, and a large majority reported they were more likely to use condoms and birth control if they have sex.

Methods

PREP grantees submit performance measures data to ACF each year. These findings are based on performance measures data submitted by State PREP, Tribal PREP, and Competitive PREP grantees for the 2014–2015 reporting period. (Author introduction)